Hi :) We're chaining conditionals and then getting the contrapositive.

So, for our purposes Sunny Day- SD, Birds sing- BS, Jane Happy- J :)

If SD -> BS

If BS -> J :)

this tracks because the necessary condition for Sunny Day (Birds Singing) is ALSO a sufficient condition for Jane being happy. Then we can link a Sunny Day to Jane being happy.

So we have:

If SD-> BS -> J :)

With that chain we know that we can take out Birds Singing (which will make Jane Happy) because it's already confirmed to happen via Sunny Day:

If SD -> J :)

and then we just take the contrapositive!

If /J :) -> /SD

(side note, if this is confusing then forget I said anything, but it also makes it true that the birds are not singing, or /J :) -> /BS -> /SD

idk why this is confusing me so badly I swear to god im not stupid

Is this not restating another premise? We're already told it emits no air pollutants, would that not make it a given that it produces more air pollutants than something that "contributes significantly" to air pollution?

Okay it helped me on this one to look at why E was better than A- not why A was wrong all together. To do that I honed in on the real goal of the hypothesis and what they were trying to prove.

The main thing they are saying is that from the evidence they think that exposure to germs → resistance to allergies.

How do you support that?

Well, kids in large family (with presumably lots of germs) → less allergies

kids with a small family but in daycare (with presumably with lots of germs) → less allergies

Basically like, "germs from siblings? Yeah you're good off allergies. Germs from other kids? Yeah you're good off allergies."

The main point isn't really based on the family size, it's just one way to tell you that they were around germs. Another way to support that is to say that once again, they were around germs, this time not from your family. Cool, germs from anywhere can help against allergies.

That makes E hit the nail on the head, and then A is kinda just there. It's an observation that just rides the coat tails of the family example in the prompt.

I know this was 3 months ago, but if it helps 3 months later then I'll tell you that I didn't find his explanation helpful in doing anything but confusing me. I got it right via this logic:

"Okay so with resistance to heavy metals, we see that they resist antibiotics. cool. How do I prove it?

Well if everything else is pretty much the same in the sludge, but no metals, they suddenly can't resist the metals OR the antibiotics?

So, with the heavy metals, all systems go, the whole chain flows. Without it, everything sucks. Cool, I definitely believe the resistance to heavy metals has an impact on the resistance to antibiotics."

I'm killing these. I was so stoked, then I looked and these account for like 6% of the test. those MBT mf questions kill me and thats the majority. goodnight

bang baby

I think trying to find a new job while already studying for one of the more difficult standardized tests that there are is biting off a bit more than you may be able to chew. (It would be for me at least, but your mileage may vary.) I think the studying process and school itself will help prepare you enough, and the skills you might learn as a legal secretary or something of the like really might not be worth the stress/ the possibility of not getting into the school you want because your LSAT score suffered due to lost study time looking for a new job. Lots of people study for the LSAT, take what they learned from LSAT to enter law school, finish law school, take what they learned from law school to get a job in the field. If you have a job that is making you enough money to get by and save what you need, I don't think there's any shame in homing in on your LSAT and riding out that process.